NASA Names Chief of UFO Research; Panel Sees No Alien Evidence (reuters.com) 120
NASA on Thursday said it has named a new director of research into what the government calls "unidentified anomalous phenomenon," or UAP, while the U.S. space agency's chief said an expert panel that urged deeper fact-finding on the matter found no evidence of an extraterrestrial origin for these objects. You can read the study team's full report here (PDF). Reuters reports: Administrator Bill Nelson made the announcement about the new research chief -- without disclosing the person's identity -- after the independent panel of experts recommended in a new report that NASA increase its efforts to gather information on UAP and play a larger role in helping the Pentagon detect them. [...] The NASA panel, comprising experts in fields ranging from physics to astrobiology, was formed last year and held its first public meeting in June. "The NASA independent study team did not find any evidence that UAP have an extraterrestrial origin, but we don't know what these UAP are," Nelson said, adding that a goal of the agency is to "shift the conversation about UAP from sensationalism to science."
"The mission of NASA is to find out the unknown," Nelson said. "Whatever we find, we're going to tell you," Nelson added, promising transparency on any discoveries. The new UAP research director will handle "centralized communications, resources and data analytical capabilities to establish a robust database for the evaluation of future UAP," NASA said. Nelson told Reuters he does not know the name of the new director. Dan Evans, a senior research official in NASA's science unit and a member of the study team, said harassment that other panel members had received from the public during their work was "in part" why the new director's identity was being kept secret.
"The mission of NASA is to find out the unknown," Nelson said. "Whatever we find, we're going to tell you," Nelson added, promising transparency on any discoveries. The new UAP research director will handle "centralized communications, resources and data analytical capabilities to establish a robust database for the evaluation of future UAP," NASA said. Nelson told Reuters he does not know the name of the new director. Dan Evans, a senior research official in NASA's science unit and a member of the study team, said harassment that other panel members had received from the public during their work was "in part" why the new director's identity was being kept secret.
There's no such thing as aliens (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: There's no such thing as aliens (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It's always been there.
Remember: If they're not showing us the evidence it's because there's a cover-up!
Re: (Score:2)
To whit: Easy Rider [youtu.be]
Far out.
Re: There's no such thing as aliens (Score:4, Insightful)
I find the whole UFO subject very interesting. I've personally seen objects in the sky performing feats that would be physically impossible for any currently known technology (super secret military tech notwithstanding) so I view the subject with a totally open mind. e.g. I've seen objects go from extreme speeds to an instant dead stop., stay motionless for a period of time, then instantly accelerate off, sometimes whilst making sharply angled turns etc. And this was when I was younger and my eyes were *really* good (better than 20/20)
Anybody can claim to have seen anything. That does not make it so. In a nutshell, such testimonies are not believable, period: extraordinary claims require extraordinary supporting evidence, and eyewitness tales do not measure up.
Re: (Score:2)
I've personally seen objects in the sky performing feats that would be physically impossible for any currently known technology (super secret military tech notwithstanding) so I view the subject with a totally open mind.
See my point?
Re: (Score:2)
See my point?
Your point is spot on. A few years ago my daughter and I saw in the sky what could only be described as a witch on a broom. Now did we see a witch on a broom? Probably not. Most likely what we saw was a bag or something else made of plastic.
Distraction (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've been asking myself about the complete nonsense, stuff that makes a sane person has his brain implode, being pushed in all the media lately a lot. Now I'm not a conspiracy theory type, but there must be some agenda to it. I've been also tracing the money as this is the reason loads of wrong things happen, and it seems like huge financial management corporations like Blackrock and Vanguard are the ones behind a lot of this mind-blowing agendas being pushed. I'm still not sure why they are interested in m
Re: (Score:1)
I'm still not sure why they are interested in making people dumber and distracted by nonsense. Should be political and financial-economical reasons. I know this sounds dystopian...
Inverted Totalitarianism [wikipedia.org] ?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that's what I had in mind and I've read this exactly Wiki sometime ago. The government is controlled by big corporations and it makes it look like there's democracy, but it's a kind of totalitarianism, complete control over media, ads, consumerism. It all fits perfectly. This is a new kind of societal structure which many have started to call corporatism.
But what gweihir said is certainly a part of it. Absolutely based comment. (no mod points here though) Media is controlled by big corporations, there
Re: (Score:2)
Corporatism is how F
Re: (Score:2)
So, what do you get by inverting that? "Government by the People, of the People, and for the People." That the People may and do self-organize into groups and argue politics is an natural feature of liberal democracy, not a contradiction thereof. So what
Re: (Score:2)
I am not sure on that. Do not forget that we have something like 90% of the human race believes in some deity without any evidence whatsoever. People like fantastical stuff and most people are really bad at even elementary fact-checking. So the media just reports what people like to see and there is a dynamic in that, i.e. one "news" source reports on it, several others see it and think "we have not done that in while..." and suddenly you have a hype and all the usual fraudsters are crawling out of their ho
Re: (Score:2)
but there must be some agenda to it
The agenda is always money.
There's money to be made by clicks. They know a lot of people are fascinated with the idea of UFOs, so they write (or, AI writes) clickbait articles about it. The Air Force recently declassified some documentation regarding UFOs and that's perfect fuel for the fire.
UFOs have *always* been a hot topic. You're just seeing it turned up to 11 because of how easy it is to reach people.
Re: (Score:3)
Congress is pushing it. Instead of relying upon experts to show how most of the evidence has been debunked and the rest inconsequential, they instead advertise UFOs to the "public" and force DoD and NASA into these absurd bureaucratic extensions; then the congress-critters can promote themselves as listening to the public. It is all one big mutually recursive backscratching exercise between Congress, the Press, and the sainted American people. A significant proportion of the American people will believe any
Re: (Score:2)
And to copy some shit from Neil DeGrasse Tyson, let's ask why the photos and videos are vaguely blurry in this age of "everyone has a camera?" There's not one high-definition clue.
Re: (Score:2)
And to copy some shit from Neil DeGrasse Tyson, let's ask why the photos and videos are vaguely blurry in this age of "everyone has a camera?" There's not one high-definition clue.
In the old days with film and manual cameras I can understand blurry images. But today? I used to have a Samsung S7, quite a few yeas old. I'm zooming down the interstate at 70 mph. I picked up the phone and casually aimed it at a sign in a field. When I looked at the image, it was a sharp as if I was standing in front of the sign. You could make it out perfect.
We may need to reconsider our priorities here and worry about a slightly out of focus monster running around in the woods.
Re: There's no such thing as aliens (Score:1)
As long as you can't sit there and argue facts with them over and over then it must be true the very next time they utter their lies. Honestly, if it were a bunch of prominate non whites insisting on baseless alien nonsense it would not be at all taken seriously.
Re: There's no such thing as aliens (Score:1)
Correction: misspelled "prominent"
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You ever seen the movie Paul? There you go.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the thing is nobody knows whether there are aliens. Hence there is room for "sceptics" and people hallucinating.
That said, there is no _evidence_ for aliens and some rather well-supported Physics that makes alien visits exceptionally unlikely and even more so the stealthy version. Some aliens coming here with a ram-scoop would be dead obvious. Some aliens using some magic "FTL" travel may be not noticeable (it being magic), but how likely is it really that tons of physicists have overlooked the possib
Re: (Score:3)
> there is no _evidence_ for alien
NASA's own video footage [youtu.be] disagrees.
> how likely is it really that tons of physicists have overlooked the possibility for something so fundamental?
Modern Science is a complete clusterfuck of ignorance. Wake me up when they (re)discoverer the 2 missing fundamental forces or have a working ToE.
Re: (Score:2)
NASA's own video footage disagrees.
Posted by ChemtrailCrimes? Of course, it's so obvious now! Aliens are making our jets emit chemtrails so they can hide!
Re: (Score:2)
Hahaha, no. You probably have never heard of a thing called a "scam".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. It may also be some other surprising effect. There are tons in electronics, for example.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. But how likely are major adjustments that go up to practical applications of the needed nature? Not very. How likely, on the other hand, is it that the "UFO nuts" are just nuts? Psychology tells us that is very likely.
Incidentally, you have just used the invalid reasoning behind a lot of "God proofs". This is also the reason why Science always requires positive proof (and extraordinary positive proof for extraordinary claims). People are just far too willing to believe stuff than tickles their fantasi
Re: (Score:2)
I am dying to know why this FUD is consuming the airwaves. How did Coast To Coast AM go mainstream? Surely it's the fault of the education system.
I remember them along with Talknet. Made some long late night drives less boring, even if much of the topics were bizarre.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember them along with Talknet. Made some long late night drives less boring, even if much of the topics were bizarre.
I am actually a long-time listener, but for fun. I enjoy the incredulity on display.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember them along with Talknet. Made some long late night drives less boring, even if much of the topics were bizarre.
I am actually a long-time listener, but for fun. I enjoy the incredulity on display.
Yea, it was fun listening to some of the stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, it was fun listening to some of the stuff.
It still is fun. I'm kind of burnt out on aliens, on a sasquatch kick now, but I love these paranormal stories. It's fascinating what people can make up and believe in without any evidence. Even though I don't believe there is a large out of focus monster roaming the woods, it's fun to hear the stories.
An just to be clear, just because I don't subscribe to the big foot myth, I'm not going to rule that particular one out. There is a enough evidence to make one wonder.
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, it was fun listening to some of the stuff.
It still is fun. I'm kind of burnt out on aliens, on a sasquatch kick now, but I love these paranormal stories. It's fascinating what people can make up and believe in without any evidence. Even though I don't believe there is a large out of focus monster roaming the woods, it's fun to hear the stories.
I've often thought Paranormal Scientist would be an interesting retirement side hustle. Create a device, but an old ambulance, and viola...
An just to be clear, just because I don't subscribe to the big foot myth, I'm not going to rule that particular one out. There is a enough evidence to make one wonder.
I feel the same way. Could there be an elusive primate we haven't discovered? Possibly.
Re: (Score:2)
I feel the same way. Could there be an elusive primate we haven't discovered? Possibly.
Exactly. It's basically a big hairy monkey (ape). There is nothing that says it can't exist. Doesn't mean it does, just its possible.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. Critical thinking and logical fallacies should be taught starting in the 3rd grade. That way, even small children would scoff at this shit and misinformation and conspiracy theories. They'd know the difference between bullshit and wild honey.
Re: There's no such thing as aliens (Score:2)
Everyone can see the pathologies affecting the people with the wrong letter after their name. But are we really that balkanized and disconnected that these things stay where they start, or are there just different manifestations of a common problem: everyone is stupid and crazy, but now you just know about it more.
Aliens exist, but have they come here ? (Score:5, Interesting)
The universe is vast so it is probable that life exists somewhere else. Two questions:
* I suspect that most life elsewhere is bacterial, how much is intelligent ?
* vast means great distances to travel, how much intelligent life has taken the time to get here ?
Re: (Score:2)
Though I don't believe they are coming here. We aren't that interesting.
Re: (Score:1)
The universe is vast so it is probable that life exists somewhere else.
Actually, there is nothing to base such a statement on. We have one planet we know has life and that is it. There might be more right in this solar system or nothing else in the entire universe. You cannot extrapolate from a sample size of one.
Re: (Score:3)
It seems that life started on earth a few hundred million years after liquid water was available [wikipedia.org] so, it seems likely, that starting life is not "hard" given the right conditions. Even if only a small percentage of planets are "right" as planet earth is, that there are so many planets suggests that there will be others that are "right" -- probably.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems that life started on earth a few hundred million years after liquid water was available [wikipedia.org] so, it seems likely, that starting life is not "hard" given the right conditions.
How do you come to that conclusion? Just because water plays a role in life on earth and water seems to have a decent presence throughout the known universe doesnt mean anything when we dont have any real understanding of how life began to begin with. Life on earth could be a total fluke where massively unlikely events luckily coincided with the presence of water.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you come to that conclusion?
All of the one sample we have of the origin of life support that conclusion.
Re: (Score:2)
If you understood how meaningful a sample size of 1 is you'd also understand how completely ridiculous you sound.
Re: (Score:2)
you'd also understand how completely ridiculous you sound
And if you had experience interacting with humans, you'd understand sarcasm.
Re: (Score:2)
And if you had any concept of how sarcasm works you'd known that the written word is terrible for it as it is quite difficult to convey the type of tone to land sarcasm properly.
I mean, you're kind of a dumb shit if you think making a statement using the written word that a person could easily be making literally should be automatically understood as sarcasm.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, you're kind of a dumb shit if you think making a statement
What I think is that you were so excited to tell someone they were wrong, and flex your superiority, you didn't really take the time to think about what was written.
As for your current behavior where you're calling me names... well, that's just pure class.
Have a better one.
Re: (Score:2)
Hahaha, you're getting all sensitive about me calling you a name when you had no problem insulting me in the post prior. Nice attempt at diverting from your claim you cant support by claiming some kind of moral high ground.
You're clearly so wrapped up in yourself though that that probably never occurred to you though, exactly like you cant comprehend how some one couldnt understand your written "sarcasm" when all you've written is basically a rewording of the core argument of the person I was originally add
Re: (Score:2)
I ether read about this or watched it in a documentary. The proposal was that if the conditions were right for life, life would always arise there. As we have studied our own world we have found that the conditions for life are much broader than we use to believe. We are finding complex life forms in places without light, in temperatures that are more likely to be found in a back yard BBQ.
Re: (Score:2)
The proposal was that if the conditions were right for life, life would always arise there.
Pure conjecture. There is no scientifically sound reason to think that. Wishful thinking is not Science.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Completely unknown. This might have been an event so rare that it never happens in most universes (assuming there are more). As we can only observe it in a place where it _has_ happened, this is not a statistically relevant observation. (Also refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]).
Re:Aliens exist, but have they come here ? (Score:5, Insightful)
The universe is vast so it is probable that life exists somewhere else.
Actually, there is nothing to base such a statement on. We have one planet we know has life and that is it. There might be more right in this solar system or nothing else in the entire universe. You cannot extrapolate from a sample size of one.
No you can't, if you simply say "because we exists others must as well;" but you can say "these are the conditions that enabled to carbon based life on Earth" and "these are the steps that lead to life as we know it." Once you establish that, you can make educated guess on the likelihood of similar conditions in the universe and from there the probability some form of life exists. When you're dealing with numbers that big the probability it doesn't should approach zero. That doesn't even account for the possibility of "life" in other forms as well.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you and offer the following by way of expansion:
"Life as we know it," is problematic. The life we know is the result of randomness in the form of a sizeable moon for tides, and filtering of species via multiple catastrophic events like "The Great Dying," which includes getting hit by a big rock, paving the way for humans.
When we detect similar ingredients for the recipe for life as we know it, we won't know if that life has also run the gauntlet.
Re: (Score:2)
That is pure conjecture. We actually have no clue how life came to be on Earth. We do know some possible necessary conditions. But we have now idea about the sufficient conditions. Hence it is entirely possible that even given the exact conditions on Earth, life does not emerge in almost all cases. We do know it somehow did here, but due to the "observation selection effect" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle) we have no idea how likely this is. We also have no idea how life actually started
Re: (Score:3)
There is a significant flaw in your reasoning... we may only have one planet which has life on it but we actually have many planets we can observe and measure to one extent or another and have measurements of the universe/matter/etc. Even if the conditions of this planet were all that works there are so many planets out there which fit the criteria that the probability none of them evolved some sort of life is so low as to not be worth considering. This much has had general consensus for quite some time as
Re: (Score:2)
. Even if the conditions of this planet were all that works there are so many planets out there which fit the criteria that the probability none of them evolved some sort of life is so low as to not be worth considering.
Actual scientists call this "pseudo profound bullshit". What you are doing here is a limit analysis (in the mathematical sense). Your claim is "probability towards zero, multiply by a number going towards infinity gives some number larger than zero". Elementary calculus shows that is not necessarily the case, even if many people never understand that. In other words, your argument is complete nonsense. For it to work you need to make unproven implicit assumptions.
Re: (Score:2)
That is one of the challenges. Large samples are used to make best guesses vs reality and massage away variables like this but at the end the day they'll give you a false confidence if there is an unaccounted for variable that might not even known to you which drastically tips the scale.
If you stand outside and toss a billion toothpicks in the air you can reasonably calculate a good approximation of how many of them will land within a certain radius for example but unanticipated extreme gust of wind will pr
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, why not. Just assume a finite probability, then invoke an infinite number of coin tosses.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no infinite number of coin tosses. This universe is quite finite.
Re: (Score:2)
You sure? Assume that current models are accurate and dark energy will expand the universe for infinite time. Further assume that QM is correct (it sure does seem to be) and everything at the quantum level is simply a probably field leaving literally anything possible - even if the vast majority of possibilities are indescribably improbable. Over the course of infinite time, quantum fluctuation will produce every possible configuration of matter and energy in the universe.
Kurzgesagt recently covered this co
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, there is nothing to base such a statement on. We have one planet we know has life and that is it. There might be more right in this solar system or nothing else in the entire universe. You cannot extrapolate from a sample size of one.
I agree that you have a point but with some of the new theories on how life starts, particularly the one where if the conditions for life are present that life will always arise. An as we have explored with life here on earth we are finding life in places that we never thought we would find life.
I agree with the theory that life might be common in the universe but intelligent life might be far more uncommon.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that you have a point but with some of the new theories on how life starts, particularly the one where if the conditions for life are present that life will always arise.
Sure. But these are "theories", not "Theories", i.e. they are unproven speculation. Sure, if you assume life is likely to arise then life will likely arise. As a lot of people are in love with that idea, you may also find it relatively easy to get research-grant money. But that reasoning is circular. We need to know a lot more about how life comes to be and we need to experimentally verify that before speculation about the probabilities become more than WAGs.
Re: (Score:2)
WTF was this modded down? It is factually accurate. Did I step on some "moderators" pet fantasies?
Re: (Score:2)
Completely unknown. There is nothing to base an estimate on. In fact, it may require a number far, far higher than "200 trillion billion stars" to become reasonably likely in a given universe. The "observation selection effect" assures then when life arises and manages to get to some level of intelligence, that life can observe that it exists. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle)
All this discussion here shows that people have trouble dealing with large numbers and small probabilities. That ha
Re: (Score:2)
The universe is vast so it is probable that life exists somewhere else
It's the vastness of space that is the problem. The diameter of the observable universe is 92 billion light years. This is an incredible number because the universe has only existed for about 14 billion years. So if you were traveling at light speed, and had been traveling since the start of the universe, you'd only be able to travel 15% of the way across the diameter of the observable universe. The universe is just really, really, really big.
For all practical purposes, we're alone in the universe.
Re: (Score:2)
But did god create aliens in his own image, or only as non-meat for us to eat?
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect that most life elsewhere is bacterial, how much is intelligent ?
I suspect that life elsewhere is a race of elephant-like creatures with fractal-branching trunks.
There equal evidence to support both of our claims.
how much intelligent life has taken the time to get here
7. Ehh, I mean 43 kilograms.
Sheeple (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
NASA hasn't been co-opted. They are responding to Congress, but Congress has not yet realized that they've been "committeed". When Congress wants updates on the "UFO Problem", they'll be pointed to the committee, which will produce ad-copy to keep the congress-critters happily loaded with propaganda that can be displayed to the pubic as how they are taking the "problem" seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
BTW, there are no right answers to conspiracy theorists. You either agree, or you're part of the conspiracy.
Wanna buy a bona fide, guaranteed to work against extra-dimensional biological entities, tin foil hat?
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming you went through all the trouble of joining this site to have some impact, you need to never, ever, use the word "sheeple." It makes your credibility seem cheaple. Say what you mean.
Re: (Score:2)
Only one question (Score:2)
Why semicolon instead of colon? An alien ate the Shift key?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why semicolon instead of colon? An alien ate the Shift key?
Because you weren't paying attention in highschool grammar? Notice title has two statements which are independent, conjoined only in time? A comma would dramatically change the meaning of the title.
Re: (Score:2)
UAP = Unacknowledged American Prototypes (Score:2)
If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, and it flies like a duck, it's probably an alien.
Re: (Score:1)
We should call it BSIP - BullShit Inspiring Phenomena
Now outsourced to Boeing and Discovery+ (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The amount of taxpayer money is insignificant. And NASA, beyond producing ad-copy for the congress-critters, will use whatever meagre funds they get for the effort to enhance sensor abilities.
Rest assured (Score:2)
Thank goodness! See, someone takes use pleb taxpayers serious. We can let them do their work in peace, diligently going after our own duty, knowing we will find out as and when something happens.
</sarcasm>
Aliens or not (Score:2)
There's some kind of phenomenon happening even if its purely psychological. Its been known for a while that infrasound can create feelings of dread and sense of a presence which can explain some ghost "sightings", perhaps something equivalent is confusing the visual system in some UFO cases that clearly arn't other aircraft, military or civilian?
Or perhaps there really are craft that break the laws of known physics flying about. Either way you can't dismiss these sightings because cranks aside, these people
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Either way you can't dismiss these sightings because cranks aside, these people really believe they saw something wierd.
Oh yes, yes I can. I already dismiss many, many things which people believe in without evidence, what's a few more? I don't believe in any type of magical sky friends, and I won't until there's some reasonable evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
If you think they're all delusional then don't fly again because a lot of pilots have seen something. It might have been balloons or even venus but its not a case of them believing in something, they're simply stating what they saw. Perhaps it was venus or even a balloon but you can't say they're just liars.
Ok, it is time to take matters into our hands. (Score:3)
The gauntlet has been thrown down scientific community. If you can't find the damn aliens then find a crater on Mars to terraform and step up the synthetic biology game and make some damnit.
Interstellar travel is isolationist (Score:2)
Duh-doi there's no evidence. (Score:2)
in other news (Score:2)
In other news, NASA, sensing increasing interest from Congress and the general public, has created a division to search for and preserve the habitat of unicorns. NASA expects new public funding for this endeavor to be forthcoming imminently.
Something's going on, regardless of NASA (Score:3)
The reason you have all this "UFO talk" coming out now all stems from Grusch filing his whistleblower complaint, which is extremely compelling in the sense he's put a LOT at risk if this was some kind of made-up publicity stunt AND he has a good track record as someone who isn't just a crackpot.
You can tell the man was on to something valid just by watching the politics unfolding around all of it. If it was just a "bunch of nonsense", you wouldn't see the major efforts made to block him by parties who have something at stake if he's correct.
The mass news media, as per usual. is pretty clueless and just wants "eyeballs" - so it reacts by giving more airtime to every moron out there wanting 5 minutes of fame to brag that he or she saw a UFO, got abducted by aliens, or has an alien body hidden somewhere.
I don't feel like NASA is necessarily trying to hide anything from us? But judging from statements made by Grusch, this wouldn't even be anything NASA has involvement with or control over. This is about claims that alien craft have, indeed, been recovered before in a dozen or so instances around the world, and there are private sector contractors in possession of them. If the U.S. military felt an alien craft posed a threat or security risk to them in some classified scenario, they wouldn't immediately run to NASA for assistance with that. They'd probably interact with it on their own -- even potentially shooting it down if it wouldn't leave restricted airspace. Then they'd work with a military contractor to quietly do the cleanup/removal of it and to have them investigate it for any useful technologies that could be developed from it.
Personally? I think much of the distrust of NASA about aliens/UFOs stems from comments several astronauts have made over the years that suggested some of this was real.
For example? In 2003, astronaut Yang Liwei, the first to be sent into space by the Chinese space program, was sitting in his space shuttle when he reportedly heard a knock. He described it as "someone knocking the body of the spaceship just as knocking an iron bucket with a wooden hammer." Apparently he's not the only to have experienced this. There were other Chinese astronauts, between 2005-2008, who've reported hearing similar sounds.
American astronaut Leroy Chiao, commander of the International Space Station in 2005, along with his crew, saw a set of strange lights in space. Chiao described the formation as an upside-down almost-V. The crew and Chiao chanced upon the formation after it flew past them.
And of course, we have astronaut Edgar Mitchell from the Apollo 14 program, who made pretty extensive claims about the existence of extraterrestrials and even that they interfered with nuclear missiles at the White Sands testing site during the Cold War era.
A problem with coexistence ... (Score:2)
As a lead-in to my point, I ask the question, "Why did I not meet Abe Lincoln?"
The answer is that I was never a contemporary. To meet him, I would have to have lived at the same time. So some people, like me, were too late and others were too early.
Moving on to the question of aliens on Earth, in addition to the requirements that they have to get here, they also have to get here while we're here. Human language development is considered a cognitive hallmark of sentience. Linguistic evidence dates back 30,00
Transparent as a brick (Score:2)
Why would anyone trust in "full transparency" when they're not even willing to give us the name of the new director?
Don't get me wrong. I don't think NASA is covering anything up, and I take at face value what they safe about panel members being harassed. They may well be justified in keeping the director's name a secret. But this is clearly not "full transparency". Promising that but not giving it is really just doing the conspiracy theorists' work for them.
Why spend BUDGET on a NASA ruse (Score:2)
NASA’s jumping on a pile of cashflow to spend ULA-type unsustainable on unsubstantiables. There’s no evidence in the world to support the pursuit of UAP or UFO’s being anything other than phenomena that already exist is what they are claiming. NASA can’t launch a rocket on their own petard why let them foist a UAP on us?
Neither named Mulder/ scully, might not even smoke (Score:2)
so disappointed :p
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't say "It is not aliens" what they said is "The NASA independent study team did not find any evidence that UAP have an extraterrestrial origin, but we don't know what these UAP are," and that a goal of the agency is to "shift the conversation about UAP from sensationalism to science."
So what they are saying is "let's actually find out what these are using science and not 'it's got to be aliens'"